Ellough Airfield, Benacre Road, Ellough, Suffolk - Gov.uk

34 Pages·2013·0.25 MB·English

by  Chris Howsham

Mr M Hard Our Ref: APP/T3535/A/13/2193543
DLP Planning Consultants
DLP Planning Ltd Your Ref: N/SF114/1P
Sophia House
28 Cathedral Road 16 October 2013
Cardiff
CF11 9LJ

Dear Sir,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78
BY MRS J WALL OF LARK ENERGY
AT LAND AT AND ADJACENT TO ELLOUGH AIRFIELD, BENACRE ROAD,
ELLOUGH, SUFFOLK
APPLICATION REFERENCE DC/12/1113/FUL

1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given
to the report of the Inspector, Neil Pope BA (hons) MRTPI, who held a public
local inquiry on 11 and 12 June 2013 into your client's appeal against the
decision of Waveney District Council (the Council) to refuse planning
permission for the installation of a 24MW solar farm and associated
infrastructure at land at and adjacent to Ellough Airfield, Benacre Road,
Ellough, Suffolk, in accordance with application reference DC/12/1113/FUL,
dated 19 February 2013.
2. On 14 March 2013, the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's
determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 to Schedule 6 to,
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because the appeal involves
proposals of major significance for the delivery of the Government’s climate
change programme and energy policies.
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision

3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning
permission granted subject to conditions. For the reasons given below, the
Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendation and has
decided to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. A copy of the
Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers,
unless otherwise stated, are to that report.

Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: [phone]
Planning Central Casework Division, Email: [email protected]
1/H1, Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU
Procedural Matters

4. The Secretary of State notes that prior to the Council’s determination of the
application the scheme was amended, which reduced the capacity of the
proposed solar farm from 30MW to 24MW (IR1). He has determined the appeal
on this basis.
5. The Secretary of State has determined the appeal on the basis of the details
shown on the plans and drawings listed in IR2.
6. The Secretary of State notes that late representations, in the form of Planning
and Landscape Statements, were accepted by PINS and a Rebuttal Statement
was dealt with as part of the Inquiry (IR4-5). As the Inspector has considered
these matters in his conclusions, the Secretary of State is satisfied that no
interests would be prejudiced by him taking these representations into account.
7. The application for costs made by your client at the Inquiry (IR1) is the subject
of a separate decision letter, also being issued today by the Secretary of State.
8. The Secretary of State has taken into account that in April 2013 the Council
granted planning permission for application DC/13/0239 for the installation of a
14.1MW solar farm and associated infrastructure on the northern part of the
appeal site (the permitted scheme) (IR27).
Matters arising after the close of the inquiry

9. Following the close of the Inquiry, on 29 July 2013, the Government published
‘Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy’ (the
Guidance), which the Secretary of State has taken into account as a material
consideration in these appeals The Secretary of State wrote to parties on 6
August 2013 inviting comment on the Guidance. A single response from the
Council was received in response to the Secretary of State’s letter and this
response was copied to the main parties on 27 August 2013 for any final
comments. No further responses were received. The Secretary of State has
taken the Council’s correspondence into account in reaching his decision.
Copies of this correspondence may be obtained, on written request, from the
address at the bottom of the first page of this letter.
Policy considerations

10. In deciding the application, the Secretary of State has had regard to section
38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that
proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise.
11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, in this case, the
development plan comprises the 2009 Waveney District Council Core Strategy
(CS) and the Council’s 2011 Development Management Policies (DMP) (IR16).
He considers the development plan policies relevant to this appeal to be those
set out by the Inspector at IR17-18.
12. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into
account include the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); the
Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1); Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in
Planning Permissions; and Planning practice guidance for renewable and low
carbon energy. He has not taken into account Planning for Renewable Energy:
A Companion Guide to PPS22 (PPS22CG), which was cancelled by paragraph
2 of the Guidance.
13. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the Suffolk Landscape Character
Assessment (2008); the East of England Landscape Framework; the Waveney
District Landscape Character Assessment; the 2005 Kyoto Protocol; the EU
Renewable Energy Directive; the Stern Review; the Energy White Paper 2007;
the Energy Act 2008; the 2008 Energy Market Outlook-Electricity Demand
Forecast Narrative; the Renewable Energy Roadmap Update 2012; and the
statements made by the Minister of State for Climate Change on 16 January
and 7 February 2013.
14. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the fact that on 28 August 2013
Government opened a new national planning practice guidance web-based
resource. However, given that the guidance has not yet been finalised, he has
attributed it limited weight.
15. The Secretary of State notes that there are several listed buildings within the
surrounding area (IR15). In accordance with section 66 of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, he has paid special regard to the
desirability of preserving these listed structures or their settings or any features
of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess.
Main issues
16. The Secretary of State agrees that the main issue in this case is whether the
benefits of the scheme, including the production of electricity from a renewable
source, outweigh any harmful impacts, having particular regard to the effect
upon the character and appearance of the countryside, including the likely
impact upon the Hundred Tributary Valley Farmland Landscape Character Area
(HTLCA) (IR37).
Preliminary Matters

17. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s conclusions
regarding the impact of the proposal on the listed buildings within the
surrounding area at IR76-79 and has paid special regard to the desirability of
preserving these listed structures and their settings and any features of special
architectural or historic interest which they may possess. He agrees with the
Inspector (IR77) and the main parties (IR36) that the appeal site does not form
part of the setting of any listed building or monument and as a consequence
there is no requirement to consult English Heritage (IR77).
18. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given at IR80,
that there is no requirement to consult Natural England on the loss of
agricultural land.
19. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector and the main parties that the
most relevant development plan policies for the determination of this appeal are
DMP policies DM03 and DM27 (IR81). For the reasons given at IR81, he
agrees with the Inspector that, with regards to policy DM27, policies relevant to
the WLCA should be given moderate weight.
Benefits of the Scheme

20. The Inspector considers the proposal to offer wider environmental benefits by
providing a considerable amount of clean, renewable and sustainable
electricity, which would contribute to national and local targets for renewable
energy (IR82). Reflecting the Framework, the Guidance recognises that all
communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green
energy (paragraph 97 of Framework and paragraph 5 of Guidance); however,
the Guidance makes it clear that this does not mean that the need for
renewable energy automatically overrides environment protections and the
planning concerns of local communities (paragraph 5 of the Guidance).
Although the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the wider
environmental benefits should be afforded significant weight (IR82), taking
account of the Guidance, he recognises that new renewable and low carbon
energy infrastructure should only be provided in locations where the local
environmental impact is acceptable (paragraph 3 of the Guidance).

21. The Secretary of States agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons given at
IR83, the local environmental benefits of the scheme resulting from the new
hedgerow planting are important considerations that carry much weight. In
coming to this conclusion he notes that the Guidance encourages biodiversity
improvements such as these. However, he considers that the scheme already
permitted by the Council will provide comparable benefits to the local
environment whilst having less of an environmental impact and considers this a
material consideration in the determination of this appeal.

22. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s conclusions regarding
the economic benefits of the scheme at IR84 and his view that these benefits
should be afforded significant weight. Whilst he recognises that the construction
of the development would support around 100 jobs and that this would benefit
the national economy, he has also taken into consideration that the
employment created would not be local and that the benefit to local services,
businesses and facilities would be limited to the construction phase of the
development. Notwithstanding this, the Secretary of State agrees that this
would support the Government’s objective of promoting a strong rural economy
and would have a positive impact on the electricity supply (IR84). Overall, he
agrees with the Inspector that the economic benefits of the scheme are
important considerations but given they are limited the Secretary of State
affords them only moderate weight in support of the proposal.

Effect upon the Character and Appearance of the Countryside

23. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s conclusions
regarding the impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the
countryside at IR86-94. Like the Inspector, he agrees that there would be no
harmful impact upon the Norfolk Broads and the Suffolk Coastal Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (IR86). He also agrees that the harm to the
character of the district within a kilometre of the northern, eastern and western
boundaries of the northern part of the appeal site would be no greater than that
of the permitted scheme, which has already been accepted by the Council
(IR89).

24. The Secretary of State, like the Inspector, considers that the impact of the
scheme upon the HTLCA must be assessed in accordance with DMP policy
DM27 (IR87). He notes the Inspector’s view that the scheme would only have a
limited adverse effect upon the character of the site and that it would not
undermine the strategic objectives of the HTLCA. He agrees with the Inspector
that the scheme would considerably change the character of the site and would
detract from its largely unspoilt rural qualities, which weighs against granting
permission (IR90). He has also taken into account the Inspector’s view that the
proposal would erode the enjoyment of this unspoilt part of the countryside for
users of the public bridleway and, although he notes there would be no
interference with views across the HTLCA, he has taken into account that from
some sections of Jay’s Hill Road, the development would contrast awkwardly
with the appearance of the area. Like the Inspector, he agrees that this harm
also weighs against granting permission (IR92).

25. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the harm to the character
and appearance of the area would not amount to significant adverse effects but,
nevertheless, considers the effect on the character of the site, although limited,
would be adverse (IR90). The Secretary of State also notes that the impact
upon the character and appearance of the area is a concern raised in
representations made by the local community (IR64). In line with paragraphs 5
and 8 of the Guidance, he has carefully considered these representations and
has given weight to them in his determination.

Other Matters

26. The Secretary of State has had special regard to the desirability of preserving
the listed buildings in the surrounding area, their settings and any features of
special architectural or historic interest they possess. He agrees with the
Inspector, for the reasons given at IR95 that the scheme would not give rise to
any significant adverse effects or cumulative adverse effects upon these historic
features or harm any special architectural or historic qualities of the listed
buildings.

27. He also agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons given at IR96-97, the
scheme would not give rise to any significant adverse effects or cumulative
adverse effects upon the amenities of the nearby residents, and would be
unlikely to compromise the safety of existing road users or inconvenience those
living within the surrounding area.
Conditions

28. The Secretary of State has considered the schedule of planning conditions at
Annex A of the Inspector’s report, the Inspector’s comments regarding the
suggested conditions set out at IR98-103 and national policy as set out in
Circular 11/95 and the Framework. He is satisfied that the proposed conditions
are reasonable and necessary and would meet the tests of Circular 11/95 and
paragraph 206 of the Framework. However, the Secretary of State does not
consider that they overcome his reasons for dismissing the appeal.

Overall Conclusions

29. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the planning balance in this
case and the Inspector’s view that the significant benefits of the proposal
outweigh the limited harm to the character and appearance of the countryside.
In coming to his conclusion the Secretary of State has taken into account that a
scheme in the northern part of the site has already been approved by the
Council. The permitted scheme, he considers to provide an important ‘fall back’
position and to be a material consideration in his determination of this appeal.
Bearing in mind his conclusions that the local environmental benefits of the
appeal scheme are comparable to those provided by the permitted scheme,
and the economic benefits are limited, the Secretary of State considers there to
be two key differences between the appeal scheme and permitted proposals.
Firstly, he recognises that the appeal scheme would generate a larger amount
of renewable electricity, although he has also taken into consideration that this
should not automatically override environmental protections and the planning
concerns of local communities, as set out in paragraph 5 of the Guidance.
Secondly, the Secretary of State recognises that the limited harm caused by the
appeal scheme is greater than the very limited harm that would be caused by
the permitted scheme, and, in addition, would include harm to the character and
appearance of the HTCLA, which policy DM27 of the development plan seeks
to protect. He is aware that the impact on the character and appearance of the
area, in particular the HTCLA, was commonly referred to in the representations
of local residents and, in line with paragraphs 5 and 8 of the Guidance, he has
had regard to these concerns.

30. Overall, the Secretary of State considers that, in this case, the increase in the
amount of renewable energy generated by the appeal scheme does not
outweigh the additional harm caused to the character and appearance of the
area, including the harm to the character and appearance of the HTCLA, which
is protected by development plan policy. Given this, and the concerns of local
residents, he considers this harm to be unacceptable.

Formal Decision

31. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State disagrees with
the Inspector’s recommendation and hereby dismissed your client’s appeal for
the installation of a 24MW solar farm and associated infrastructure in
accordance with application reference DC/12/1113/FUL, dated 19 February
2013.
Right to challenge the decision

32. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity
of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an
application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter.
33. A copy of this letter has been sent to Waveney District Council. A notification
letter has been sent to all other parties who asked to be informed of the
decision.

Yours faithfully

Richard Watson
Authorised by Secretary of State to sign in that behalf
Report to the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government
by Neil Pope BA (HONS) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Date 8 July 2013

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED)

WAVENEY DISTRICT COUNCIL
appeal by
MRS J WALL OF LARK ENERGY

Inquiry held on 11 and 12 June 2013

Land at and adjacent to Ellough Airfield, Benacre Road, Ellough, Suffolk, NR34 7UH.

Report APP/T3535/A/13/2193543
Report APP/T3535/A/13/2193543

CONTENTS PAGE

Procedural Matters 2

The Site and Surroundings 3

Planning Policy 4

Other Documents 6

Planning History 6

The Proposals 6

The Statement of Common Ground 7

Other Agreed Matters 8

The Case for Mrs J Wall of Lark Energy 8

The Case for Waveney District Council 11

The Cases for Interested Parties 13

Planning Conditions and Obligations 16

Conclusions 17

Recommendation 22

Schedule of Planning Conditions 24

Main Abbreviations Used
aOD – Above Ordnance Datum
AONB – Suffolk Coastal Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
BR2 – The bridleway through the site
CS – Core Strategy Development Plan Document
CWS – County Wildlife Site
DMP – Development Management Policies Development Plan Document
HTLCA – Hundred Tributary Valley Farmland Landscape Character Area
LVIA – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
PINS – The Planning Inspectorate
PoE – Proof of Evidence
SBF – Mr S Basey-Fisher
SoCG – Statement of Common Ground
SPLCA - Saints Plateau East Landscape Character Area
The Framework – The National Planning Policy Framework
WLCA – Waveney District Landscape Character Assessment

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 1
Report APP/T3535/A/13/2193543

Report Ref: APP/T3535/A/13/2193543
Land at and adjacent to Ellough Airfield, Benacre Road, Ellough, Suffolk,
NR34 7UH.
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against
a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mrs J Wall of Lark Energy against the decision of Waveney District
Council.
• The application Ref. DC/12/1113/FUL, dated 21 September 2012, was refused by notice
dated 19 February 2013.
• The development proposed is the installation of a 30MW solar farm and associated
infrastructure.
Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be allowed and planning
permission granted subject to conditions in the attached Schedule.

Procedural Matters
1. The scheme1 was amended prior to the Council’s determination of the
application. A parcel of land to the north east of the B1127 (approximately 5ha
in size) was deleted from the application. The amended ‘red line’ appeal site is
approximately 46ha. The height of the proposed solar panels in the southern
part of the site was reduced. The spacing between the proposed rows of panels
in this part of the site was also reduced. I was informed by those acting on
behalf of the appellant that the capacity of the proposed solar farm would be
24MW.
2. Both main parties agreed that the appeal should be determined on the basis of
the details shown on the following plans/drawings: planning layout (1:4000
scale drawing No. Ver 15A); solar panels details – northern part of the site (1:20
scale drawing Ref. Frame); solar panels – southern part of the site (1:20 and
1:40 scale drawing No. Ellough/DWG002-V15); temporary site access (drawing
No. SF114T-002-01) and; permanent site access (drawing No. SF114T-003-01).
These access drawings can be found in Appendices C and D of the appellant’s
Transport Statement dated September 2012. In addition, the construction traffic
route comprises Appendix C of the appellant’s Deliveries Management Plan.
3. The appeal was recovered for determination by the Secretary of State by letter,
dated 14 March 2013, because it involves proposals of major significance for the
delivery of the Government’s climate change programme and energy policies.
4. Planning and landscape Statements were submitted on behalf of an interested
party2 after the deadline3 for the receipt of comments. Notwithstanding concerns
raised on behalf of the appellant, PINS accepted these late representations and
gave the appellant until 28 May 2013 to submit a Rebuttal Statement4. On 29
May 2013 a Rebuttal Statement was submitted on behalf SBF. In the interests of
procedural fairness and the need to avoid prejudicing the cases of the main

1 In September 2012, the Council issued a negative Screening Opinion under Article 5 of The
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, in respect
of a 58.7ha solar farm which included the appeal site.
2 NWA Planning and Allen Pyke Associates on behalf of Mr S Basey-Fisher (SBF) of Warrens Farm.
3 The Council’s letter informing interested parties of the appeal advised that all comments must be
received by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) by 25 April 2013.
4 Received by PINS on 28 May 2013.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 2